Generation as a social-psychological research object: playing at home or an away match?

Abstract

The article examines the methodological difficulties associated with studying of the generation category in social psychology. The history of studying the problems of generations and intergenerational conflicts in psychology and humanitarian disciplines is briefly analyzed, the conclusion is drawn about the vastness of both the theoretical concept and the blurriness of the methods of the empirical operationalization of the generation. Theoretically close constructs are given, allowing one to consider generational problems within the framework of other conceptual frameworks. Existing models and theories of generations, including popular science, are considered, their critical analysis is carried out. Some theoretical decisions are proposed that allow one to reduce the problems associated with the operationalization and study of the generation in social psychology.

The influence of the environment on a person's sexual orientation: intergenerational analysis in Russia

“…This understanding of generation unites modern Russian and Western sociologists and social psychologists and allows us to put forward various author's classifications of generations based on the general principle of the social context that influences the formation of a generation [13][14][15][16]. One of the most popular media typologies of Howe and Strauss [17], despite its popular scientific nature, is often used in rigorous scientific research as the most common type of generation classification in Russia and abroad (in Russia, this theory was adapted in the early 2000s by E. Shamis and V. Nikonov) [18]. The modern generations 'X' (born in 1963-1984), 'Y' (born in 1984-2000) and 'Z' (born in 2000 and further) differ significantly in their attitude to trends that are usually perceived as 'Western': the values of tolerance, cosmopolitanism, the perception of 'family' values, traditionalism, religiosity, etc.…”

“…Gen Z is sometimes referred to as the 'digital', 'networked', or 'I-generation' [20], thus describing the significant immersion of this generation in Internet interaction. In Russia, this generation is often described as individualistic, striving for hedonism and freedom [18,21].…”

“…The methodology for separating age, cohort, and social context factors in intergenerational studies is extremely complex [18]. As possible methodological solutions, it is recommended to resort to longitudinal studies, time-consuming meta-analyses or the socalled APC analysis (Age-Period-Cohort Analysis), which requires significant timeconsuming research, that does not guarantee the high quality of the obtained result [22].…”

Perception of Social Maturity Criteria, Self-perception and Value Orientations among Russian Millennials

“…Violation of the intergenerational transmission of values is increasingly becoming the subject of social-psychological research in Russia and abroad (Martsinkovskaya, Poleva, 2017;Pishchik, 2015;Rikel, 2019;Starchikova, 2012; Gil-SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN CULTURAL DIMENSIONS leard, Higgs, 2005;Twenge, Campbell, 2009). 'Generations' can be considered as large social groups (Andreeva, 2001), and the social-psychological operationalisation of this term is based on K. Mannheim's classical understanding through the impact of the social and cultural context on age groups (Mannheim, 1997).…”

WWII and XXth Century Wars in the Collective Memory of different generations of Russians: visual methods research

“…This interpretation is opposed to biological, genealogical, psychogenetic or demographic understanding and goes back to the classical definition of K. Mannheim, who defined the generation with the help of jointly experienced in a sensitive period of experience, which later transformed into collectively similar reactions based on formed values [1]. This interpretation essentially includes a historical, sociological, culturological and, as a result, a socio-psychological approach to understanding the generation, and it is this approach that is used by most authors to illustrate the value differences and behavioral features of different age groups [2,3,4,5,6]. Despite the differences attributed to generational groups, the terminological framework of the generation itself remains blurred, conceptual boundaries in various classifications are conditional, and the methods of studying the system-forming factors of this large social group are not always objective [6,7,8].…”